Two-thirds of TV Licensing prosecutions in a London court were brought against women, according to an exclusive analysis of court data by The Register.
We analysed three months of listings data from the City of London Magistrates’ Court in the UK. Of the 62 individual defendants who appeared in court charged with not paying …

COMMENTS

I wouldn't trust crapita to make a decent cup of tea. The thought that they have been given the power and incentive to attack people (which however you want to dress up their tactics, is what it amounts to) is scary.

"I wouldn't trust crapita to make a decent cup of tea. The thought that they have been given the power and incentive to attack people (which however you want to dress up their tactics, is what it amounts to) is scary."

What other incentive has the Government got with these contracts? If they offer excessive profits the likes of Andrew Tyrie will find out and go for them, so the incentive has to be to take money off of us.

It's why the government is not interested in dealing with drug addicts who are serial offenders. Their crimes only affect individuals and increase car and household insurance, whereas prosecuting them costs tax revenue.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying it, but if we're going to have the TV licensing system as it stands, then everyone who's supposed to pay up needs to pay up, and that requires enforcement. If they were nice about it, people just wouldn't pay (that is to say, even more people than the hundreds of thousands of freeloaders that already steal BBC content by dodging the license fee); that's a fact, so distasteful as it is, they're getting a necessary job done.

I already watch very little BBC content, and chafe somewhat at paying the license fee as it stands, but if I have to not only pay for stuff I don't watch, but subsidise even more free-loaders who watch without paying makes it even more annoying. Personally, I'd support switching to a subscription model, instead of this silly pseudo-tax nonsense we're stuck with; so if you want to watch, pay for a subscription, just like any other pay TV. But sadly there doesn't seem to be any great deal of momentum behind implementing such sanity at the moment.

My thoughts exactly, why should I pay for freeloaders and why should those freeloaders be treated nicely? That's not to say I like the TV License system as it stands, but I do watch a few TV programmes on BBC so accept I should pay to do so.

Re: "why should I pay for freeloaders"

Funny, but that's exactly what I was thinking about the TVL thugs who steal money via fraudulent legal threats and criminal harassment, from people who do not actually watch the BBC, just so a handful of cultural elitists can enjoy a state-protected relic that apparently is not good enough to survive in the free market.

Re: "why should I pay for freeloaders"

@Oh Homer "a handful of cultural elitists can enjoy a state-protected relic that apparently is not good enough to survive in the free market"

As I am not resident in the UK, I choose to pay for BBC content by subscription, and I have a choice of other content. In general, a BBC documentary is so much better than a Discovery Channel "there's this cool research we could tell you about in 5 minutes, but we have a 45 minute slot with 20 minutes of advertising" program. Then there's the problem of how the service providers bundle the channels so that I still pay for junk I don't watch, and then they renegotiate their licensing deals every few years so that I get "equivalent" channels.

Free-Loading

The free-loader is the bbc, anyone watching (and by the way I don't) ITV or Sky or the many foreign channels by satellite is deemed liable to pay the bbc as well, now that is free-loading. No other organisation would get away with it. Imagine you buy your Guardian only to be told you have to pay for the Times as well. It is a nonsense, an aberration, a relic from the days before the internet and satellites, only surviving because it has been going on since 1926.

won't get flamed by me (or as it seems by most posters on here!) I agree with you. But the main trouble with the system as it stands is its a license based system. And where ever you have a license there are always freeloaders who don't pay it, meaning it costs us who do more. So its quite simple if you can't afford a TV license don't watch the fecking telly (or BBC anyway)! Its YOUR choice. And all this bolloxs that gets talked about people going to jail for the crime of not paying a TV license is carp. You'll be given chance after chance after chance to pay up. If it lands up going all the way to court quite frankly you deserve to do time, where you can watch as much TV as you want and don't have to pay for a license!

I would get rid of the license and fund the BBC out of general taxation, with the amount they get being linked to a figure + CPI- whatever and enshrined in law so future governments will find it more difficult to tinker with how much the Beeb gets

In Germany the licence (GEZ) is pretty much the same as in the UK, except that it applies to anyone who has a PC or mobile device with an Internet connection, as well as TV owners. You don't have to watch the state sponsored networks, just the fact you have a device capable of watching TV or streamed video is enough to warrant paying for a licence.

At least they have stopped charging for each invididual device and person in the house. You now pay a flat rate for the house.

This would also

cut out a great deal of the cost of funding paying for all the collections, payments, debt recovery etc. associated with it.

Closer to ability to pay, and spread across more people reducing personal cost, and fairer in households with more than one taxpayer (as it's a household tax not personal)

I am up for this on one potentially significant caveat that it does not increase government interference with the delivery of the service, and further that government does not stich up the BBC with paying for infrastructure that's nothing to do with their offering or strategic aims...i.e. rolling out digital etc.

1. The BBC has broken its charter innumerable times, especially blatantly disallowed political involvement e.g. with the EU!

2. The license trolls are so easy to block, you just promptly say NO at the door and promptly shut the door, it isn't even enough if they somehow see you watching TV; they must coerce/trick you to into signing a statement that you watched TV, only this statement/contract enables a court case against them; without it they can't do shit, so everyone taken to court over this must be emotionally compromised (much more likely with women), naive or plain stupid!

Taxation is not OK because the BBC was started as a brainwashing vehicle, it's charter is a sham and their content quality has become so poor now that I can't tolerate anything from them now, even Doctor Who and Science programming. The BBC is an decrepit ass which should be put out of it's misery.

I just noticed that ENI added a TV related €18 to the March 2017 bill.

The very nice Italian state informed me that they have reduced the annual Italian TV license to €90 for 2017, so I guess I will be making another 4 bi-monthly payments of €18. This has happened automatically, I didn't need to do anything. I didn't even notice if I actually paid last-year.

Meanwhile, my kid at a Swiss university, dear BILLAG AG, really hasn't got a TV, so he doesn't owe you CHF451.- per year , every year , for his non-existent fernsehapparat, nope, not even a rappen.

'Contract' companies

You know the ones I'm meaning. The ones who seem to hoover up loads of things that people used to do who worked for real companies. Cos they can do it cheaper, and nearly always shitter, by paying people less, and cutting corners. I dunno, leaves a bad taste for me, seems like a race to the bottom, cheapness over quality of service and of life of people. I mean, what are we all here for? So a few at the top can get increasingly rich?

Re: TV

Re: TV

Thanks to deneral demographics, women are more likely to be home during the day and thanks to general society norms, less likely to whip out a camera when confronted on the doorstop (at which point the crapita droid will RUN, _not_ walk away in an effort to not be identified)

Re: TV

I would have expected it to be the primary resident that would be summoned, not the person who answers the door.

If this is the case then we need different data points to understand what is happening. Is this a case of women not thinking of getting a license when men do? Or that men are more likely to pay up if confronted over the lack of license? Or that more women are more likely to be the owner or primary tenant than men?

The 16yr old could be the primary tenant at that property, possibly bought for her by rich parents - we don't know. Equally, it could be a shared house and she has a TV in her lockable room - which requires a separate license (Some thing common amongst students sharing a house). All we've been told is a 16yr old living in a £400,000 house didn't have a TV license.

Yes, Crapita's approach is typical of their business model (maximise income v minimal effort and charge for everything, including all inbound phone calls, and I bet they'd try charging for any calls they make to you, too, if they could). Yes, they are bullies. No, this doesn't mean they're targetting one particular demographic. Doesn't mean they're not but we don't have the right information to support such a conclusion.

Re: TV

Also, women still tend to be paid less than men, and so are more likely to find it hard to find the money for things like TV licences. Shelter, food, and electricty will come first before even thinking about a TV licence. I'm not sugegsting that all women who don;t have a TV licence are unable to pay, but I;d be surprised if it wasn;t a higher proportion than for men.

But the way that folk are chased about TV licences never has been good. Thirty years ago, I had no television for three years, but received increasingly threateningletters about non-payment of TV licence fee. I had to resort to threatening to sue them for demanding money inappropriately (I had no TV, so no licence needed) with menaces in order to stop the buggers from sending me nasty and very worrying letters.

It's a combination of Crapita bullying those they regard as most vulnerable, and social inequality, as well as some percentage of freeloaders, IMHO.

re: End this insanely illiberal tax now.

It's almost like the goverment want crapita employed to do this to encourage outrage at this "illiberal tax".

I pay tax towards all sorts of services that I don't currently use, that doesn't make those taxes illiberal. I don't see the BBC as any different. You may not want to consume their services but having a national broadcaster who's required to be unbiased is definitely better than just giving Rupert and his ilk total control of our media.

Re: re: End this insanely illiberal tax now.

Re: re: End this insanely illiberal tax now.

Pardon me, but the BBC is CLEARLY biased. It is incredibly liberal leaning.

Right wing people complain vociferously about the BBC being left wing or "liberal". e.g. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-10-03/bbc-should-admit-to-its-liberal-bias-and-introduce-a-right-wing-hour-to-radio-4-says-david-baddiel

Left wing people complain vociferously about the BBC being right wing. e.g. http://www.thecanary.co/2016/10/31/bbcs-bias-obvious-origin-groundbreaking-academic-just-brought-light-video/

Since both sides complain equally stridently, I can't help feeling that the BBC's balance must be about right.

Re: re: End this insanely illiberal tax now.

That assumes a simple left - right model. It's perfectly feasible that the BBC could be economically statist and personally liberal or economically liberal and personally statist. Given it's a government corporation it's somewhat unlikely to be the latter and more probably the former with some personal statism sprinkled in here and there.

Re: re: End this insanely illiberal tax now.

> Since both sides complain equally stridently

Seems logical. It reminds me of the quote (not sure from who) that goes something like "The thing about being in the middle of the road is that you'll get knocked down by traffic coming from both sides"

"Men are 22 times as likely as women to be imprisoned. We should do something to correct this imbalance."

Perhaps men should stop committing the majority of crime. 98% convicted rapists are men. Roughly 80% of those convicted of assault, burglary, robbery and domestic violence are male. Same for vehicular theft, vandalism and handling stolen property.

White collar crimes are a bit more equal, although men are usually more likely (60-40) to have been convicted off them. Embezzlement, fraud that sort of thing.

That women generally get lighter sentences is an issue, but it's not enough to explain the differences in prison population.

As for the telly licence convictions, partially due to women being less likely to tell a person at their door to fuck off. Which tends to be my default if they are trying to sell anything.

I've let the cops in when they ask nicely, without a court order, but only because I'd rather they didn't decide I was uncooperative.

"Because most courts refuse to accept that it's possible for a woman to rape a man."

The legal definition of rape is "penetration of the v*g*n*by the p*n*s". So, legally speaking, it really is impossible for a woman to rape a man (asterisked to avoid the draconian Internet filter where I work).

>>"Because most courts refuse to accept that it's possible for a woman to rape a man.

>The legal definition of rape is "penetration of the v*g*n*by the p*n*s". So, legally speaking, it really is impossible for a woman to rape a man (asterisked to avoid the draconian Internet filter where I work).

Yes, I seem to remember hearing about similar (my ex was a lawyer). Due to the definition, a lot of female/female rapes are not classed as rape but sexual assault, even if forced penetration occured.

> 98% convicted rapists are men.

It does make me wonder though, if women are incapable of rape due to missing the required equipment to rape (by legal definition), what on earth did the 2% non-men do to be convicted of rape? Or does that refer to those of a different "gender identity" in a male body?

Rape as defined

Yes, rape cannot 'officially' happen between two men or two women. Forcible, unwanted entry by body parts or other things can be made, but it is assault, not rape. In a sense, 'rape' is an incredibly old-fashioned view of a crime. Assault is assault is assault.

Equality...

A giant pink elephant just walked past my window and suggested that women commit as many crimes as men but you don't see many female judges, so a quick sob and a quivering lip means the old duffers on the bench take pity on the miscreant and she gets let off.

Of course, this could never happen in the real world since we know there's no such thing as giant pink elephants and women are never drunk and disorderly, rude, offensive or violent, they never shoplift or pick pockets, never gouge people's eyes or crack someone's skull with a stiletto heel ...

Re: Equality...

> a quick sob and a quivering lip means the old duffers on the bench take pity on the miscreant and she gets let off

It's not just the old duffers on the bench. I was a juror in a drugs'n'guns case at the Bailey. The male perps were quickly banged up (and thoroughly deserved to be), but the 21-y-o, tasty totty was 'interviewed' in the detective's back seat for three-quarters of an hour, before going free.

How..

...does 'x% of people were of y demographic' automatically become 'y demographic are being actively targetted'? Fine, 2/3rds of the (rather small number of) prosecutions were women. What percentage had two legs? If that's 100%, are they 'unfairly tagetting the abled'?

Re: How..

@Solarflare

I think there are on average about 150,000 prosecutions a year for the telly tax. It's 10% of all prosecutions in the type of court where this thing is done apparently. It was a while since I saw the story but it's around those numbers as I recall.

Re: How..

Perhaps I could have been clearer, but I was referring to El Reg's own figures:

"The Register analysed three months of listings data from the City of London Magistrates’ Court. Of the 62 individual defendants who appeared in court charged with not paying the TV Licence over that period, two-thirds – 42 – were female."

I wasn't using an annual or total figure or anything. 62 people is a small data set.

Yup. I don't require a TV license, but...

I'm having this argument with them at the moment and have received the "We're going to start investigation" letter which I promptly shoved in the bin, but only after noting that apparently the only way to "stop the investigation" was to buy a TV licence. Which is a pile of totally incorrect threatening boll**ks as I don't actually need one.

So... so far I've had one bloke round who I refused entry to. This was after he threatened that if I didn't let him in they would just send more people round. I replied with a reminder to him of my (and his) rights and a fanfare of "bring it on, you'll soon get the message" and that it would allow me to start to build a nice harrassment case against them. He sloped off.

As a civil collection agency, I categorically refuse to provide my personal details to them or tow their line, and I am very much looking forward to round 2.

Re: civil collection agency

Wrong sort of civil

It was uncivil letters that that made me decide not to every get a TV licence again. (Though I suspect I would have dropped it eventually anyway).

When the post office stopped selling licences, it became tricky to buy a monochrome licence. I tried several Paypoints (or whatever they are) and none could sell me a replacement. I was working away from home at the time and realised I didn't actually need one legally, the TV (b & w portable) was laying on its side unplugged and had been for months. (I was happy enough to pay because I used iPlayer a little, but certainly not enough to justify a colour licence).

I didn't bother renewing, and got a load of letters basically accusing me of being a criminal, they went in the bin, and I gave the TV to my parents for their caravan.

Had they sent a polite letter, I would have replied explaining the situation and asking where to buy a mono TV licence.

If anyone ever comes round (that was quite a few years ago, and I have heard nothing, the letters dried up after a couple of years). Then if they are civil, then I will explain the situation, but probably not let them in (unless the house actually happened to be tidy), if not they will get told to leave with no information.

Re: Yup. I don't require a TV license, but...

"apparently the only way to "stop the investigation" was to buy a TV licence"

You can go on the TV licensing portal and tell them you don't need a licence. Worked for me - they didn't send any more letters after that - at least for the year or so before I had to get a licence again.

Two-thirds of TV Licensing prosecutions in a London court were brought against women

Our weekly local newspaper in Hertfordshire lists cases from the town's Magistrates Court. I noticed a long time ago that 75% or more prosecuted licence evaders were women, and I often wonder why this should be so.

the Campaign to end the BBC Licence Fee

- Canada, United States, Australia, Hong Kong, Luxembourg, Monaco and Spain don't have TV licence fees. Presumably its national TV is paid by taxes, in which case it's paid proportionally to each individual's income. "

Anyone who can't be arsed to research how these countries finance public broadcasting (even if they have to look it up on Wikipedia) and doesn't offer a solution is wasting our time.

She also seems to be suggesting that instead of those who watch paying, that everyone pays via taxation by the government. But in an earlier paragraph to the petition she says "The nature of the licence fee as a tax could lead to the BBC being manipulated by the government in power with the threat of withholding funds if information damaging to that government was made public" which is contradictory.

Re: the Campaign to end the BBC Licence Fee

>Fewer ads on on British telly has got nothing to do with the licence fee.

That's a bit questionable. Don't forget that ITV have always supported the licence fee, because they know that without the Beeb, commercial TV would be driven to the bottom, and existing limits on advertising would last about as long as an ad break.

I think the discussion is going off of the point

The most striking and egregious thing I find in the article is the fact that a child of 16 was prosecuted for having no TV licence for a home they clearly did not own. Therefore I can only conclude that they went after the first person who answered the door and not the home owner/tenant. That is not justice nor is it fair play.

Re: I think the discussion is going off of the point

Not sure why you've posted AC as this is something I can't see anyone disagreeing with. There is no way a child of 16 can be held responsible for someone else's TV license. If anything should be making the government crack down on Capita it's this as it's clearly a frivolous prosecution that should never have been raised. Someone should represent this girl in a counter action against Capita for wrongful prosecution.

Re: I think the discussion is going off of the point

Capita will try and prosecute anyone they can get an admission of guilt from, which is usually the person opening the door.

Often those at home during their work hours are the vulnerable, be it a pensioner, physically or mentally disabled person etc, so they get disproportionately get sent to court.

My viewing changed years ago to on demand watching rather than live viewing and I do not use the iPlayer, so do not have to pay the licence fee. Making us all pay the BBC via tax's is the wrong way to go.

It is pointless trying to convince the Capita licence collecting goons that you only watch on demand as they will claim the fact you have a tv means you are guilty. Just close the door on them. They have no rights to demand you talk or communicate with them.

Re: I think the discussion is going off of the point

"... child of 16 was prosecuted for having no TV licence ..."

I couldn't find any reference to a 16 year old in the story, where did you read about this 16 year old. The story says " ...with the youngest aged 20 ". Is this the person you were referring to? If so, you say "...for a home they clearly did not own....", the story goes on to say, "The Register's analysis was a 20-year-old woman living in a £400,000 house in Surrey " I can't think of any reason why a 20 year old couldn't own a £400,000 house. Granny died and left her a 3 bed semi. £400K doesn't buy you much in Surrey

Even if a 16 year old was prosecuted, that doesn't mean that they were found guilty, and even if they were, we don't know all the circumstances. Were they given previous warnings that they ignored?

Re: I think the discussion is going off of the point

The original story stated that the youngest defendant was 16. This has since been updated to 20. However, what's telling is that the person prosecuted does not live at the address, from the gist of the story the 20 year old is actually the child minder for the owners of the property and as such should not be liable for the homeowner's lack of tv license.

It wouldn't surprise me if they did try and prosecute a child at some point.

Re: Privatise it

Absolutely not. The last thing we need is a broadcaster controlled by the likes of Murdoch. Thanks to the BBC we at least get a semblance of unbiased reporting. Can you imagine if someone turned the BBC into Fox? It's almost as bad an idea as making the BBC totally taxpayer funded. Previous governments have already shown how they'd like to control the BBC, what we don't need is a state owned propaganda machine or a puppet controlled broadcaster biased towards whichever political viewpoint its owner wants to espouse at the time. You just have to look at the dross produced in the printed press to see how bad it would be without an independant broadcaster.

The license fee isn't great, but it beats the alternatives currently on offer.

Re: Privatise it

Absolutely not. The last thing we need is a broadcaster controlled by the likes of Murdoch. Thanks to the BBC we at least get a semblance of unbiased reporting.

It is no better than a semblance of unbiased reporting. BBC isn't known as "Buggerers Broadcasting Communism" for nothing. Peter Sissons told of how when he started at the Beeb the editor put a copy of the Observer and the Guardian in front of him and told him this was all he needed to know. If it weren't illegal for broadcasters to be politically biased then who knows what socialist tripe the beeb would be putting out.

As for unbiased, their view of "balance" when it comes to anything remotely scientific is hopeless. It led them to giving equal airing to that doctor who claimed that the MMR jab caused autism and to the representatives of the entirety of peer reviewed science who said that it doesn't. That 'balance' resulted in a lot of kids not getting the jab, and of course a lot of them became severely ill during the measles epidemic that broke out soon afterwards. Was the Beeb repentant? Nope...

Re: Privatise it

Re: Privatise it

"Equal time on air to both? Surely that's the definition of balanced reporting"

Only if they are equally deserving or equally legitimate. There was a time when the BBC felt that they had to give any loon with a dissenting voice equal time to the accepted scientific or otherwise evidence-based view.

I understand that this is no longer the case.

It seems that the BBC get accused of bias from various parts of the political spectrum, which suggests to me that they are pretty much unbiased.

However even if not, this should be addressed itself, rather than attacking the BBC as a concept. Publicly funded public broadcasting which has something for everyone (note, not "you will like everything") can only be a good thing and the BBC have some great stuff, as well as some stuff I consider awful but hey, you can watch Mrs. Brown's Boys if you really want.

Re: Privatise it

.."Only if they are equally deserving or equally legitimate. "...

Who determines how deserving or legitimate the subjects are? Surely if they did that they would be guilty of censorship?

I do understand what your're saying, at least in the case of the MMR inoculation causing autism claim but, at the time that this item broke in the news, it wasn't definitively proved to be incorrect. The scientific and medical institutions have proven to be wrong previously, so giving both sides equal airtime was the unbiased thing to do.

Re: Privatise it

I'm totally confused about the BBC, left wingers say its too right biased, right wingers say its full of lefties, remainers are complainers it give to much time to the likes of farage, leavers say its full of remonaers.

Daily Mail

Re: Daily Mail

I looked that up and included the value to show that it is quite unlikely she could have bought the house herself or that it was a council flat or similar social accommodation. My hunch (and it's nothing more than that – I have no information beyond name, date of birth, address, occupation and charge details) is that she is a carer for a parent living there and she happened to answer the door to the Capita salesman.

Admittedly I'm going out on a limb, here, but I don't know of many 16-yr-olds living independently in new-build semi-detached houses in leafy South East counties.

edited to add

I've been talking to Capita about the 16-yr-old specifically. It turns out the court made a blunder calculating her age when they put it on the listing document. She is 20, not 16.

Re: Daily Mail

Re: Daily Mail

It astonishes me that anyone ever get's caught for this, the inspectors aren't allowed to force their way in and they can't do anything if you turn them away. When I was a student (without a TV) I was doorstepped and told the chap he couldn't come in. He left, they kept sending their silly letters, nothing ever happened. There's no 'detection equipment' they literally can't catch you if you don't want them to.

Keep you mouth shut

If you have a car accident you are told by your insurers to not admit liability. Apply the same logic to the goons that knock on your door. I'm not urging people to not pay if they watch TV but don't self incriminate yourself. Do not sign anything. If you do then you deserve what you get. Crapita cannot do anything to you unless you give them the ammo to shoot you.

Re: Keep you mouth shut

You are not told by your insurer to not admit liability, you are told by everyone else. Because when you admit liability the insurer will say "you admitted liability, so we can't go to court and say it wasn't your fault but have to pay, so we want the money back from you". You do your insurer a _big_ favour if you admit liability. DON"T DO IT.

there will be LOADS of steps before going to court! you'll get 1 Million + n letters for starters! You won't go to jail for not paying for a TV license, you'd go to jail for failure to pay after the court has found you guilty and you still don't pay up!

but of course step one is BUY a TV license and stop freeloading in the first place

Re: Wait a minute

What the elite find inconvenient....

...is made illegal. No more justification for the BBC license to be subject to criminal law than for rail companies to have these powers. As with similar examples such as trespass, belong in the civil courts.

As for the argument that the license fee saves viewers from inane advertising, a license is needed to watch Freeview channels which are already wrecked by long and frequent ad breaks.

When I was a nipper my parents used to be Magistrates Courts Clerks, and they got a lot of trade from TV licensing.

Their usual MO was to knock on a door in the married quarters of the local army base, which would be answered by the wife of the soldier serving abroad. 'Where's your license,' bullyboy would say, and the wife would answer 'oh, I'm sure he's put it here somewhere, why don't you come in.'

Having been invited through the door, like a vampire, bullyboy would be able to see the TV on. When it turned out the soldier had either forgotten to renew the license or was unable to renew it, what with being abroad somewhere being shot at, the wife would be charged, given a criminal conviction, and fined £400.

In 2013, 178,332 people in England and Wales were proceeded against under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts. 153,369 were found guilty. However, only 32 of those went to prison that year.

If you look at the figures, you’ll see that the great majority of people who are found guilty of fee dodging don’t end up doing time. Why is this?

Under the current system, if you are found guilty of licence fee evasion you will in the first instance receive a fine, which in most cases can range from under £25 and up to £1,000. The amount varies, but data from the Criminal Justice System (England and Wales) shows that in most cases the fines vary between £150-£200.

Your local magistrate, district judge or sheriff can send you to prison if you wilfully and repeatedly refuse to pay the fine.

The TV Licence Enforcement Review states: “Under the current system individuals found guilty of failure to hold a TV licence do not receive a criminal record as the offence is not a recordable offence and therefore does not appear on the Police National Computer.”

If an offence is not on the PNC, it won't show up on any DBS (Disclosure and Barring Service) checks - the new name for CRB (Criminal Recods Bureau).

This was 30 years ago though. Then it was a criminal offence, though as you say people didn't get sent to prison unless they egregiously failed to pay the fine.

Yes, technically it was the wife's responsibility to get the license, but if her husband usually did it and forgot, the wife would get the conviction - the same as the 16-year old in the example who probably wasn't in charge of paying for it. My point was that the bullyboys felt that fining wives because their husbands hadn't got the license was easy money, and it would seem their tactics haven't changed much.

We get the threatening letters for an unoccupied static caravan, and I'm really hoping a precious little "officer" with a "detector van" shows up so I can tell him where to go, and how far he can shove his inspection. I can't be bothered to phone to inform them we don't need a license, partly because its not my job, and partly because when I did once, the letters stopped - for a year or so. Then it was back to the same old same old. They must have spent loads on letters.

Where's the money?

Sitting in the USA, I do wonder about the TV license - essentially it's unenforceable and while I can understand the issues, we pay good money in the US to watch the BBC on cable TV.

Realistically the transmission methods are evolving, broadcast TV is on it's way out while Internet broadcasting is becoming the way of the future - the advantage for the BBC is that it's market is the world and via the internet it should be relatively easy to move to the subscription model - Hulu offers inexpensive service with adverts or ad-free for a few bucks more...

So as a Canadian, I am a little confused as to why this system even works like this at all. Are you telling me there is no way to technically police this system so you don't pay the fee, you can't get the service? I don't quite understand how that system works but from what I've read it basically seems like everyone should be paying a licensing fee be they have a TV or a internet connection (regardless of what they are watching). Its seems like its essentially a social service program to ensure everyone has access to TV (much like I pay for public schools in Canada even though my kids goto private schools).

Wouldn't it actually work out cheaper for everyone if it were just added to income tax or something...Capita wouldn't be needed any longer and I imagine with 20 million people or so paying taxes, the cost per person would be peanuts compared to all this hassle with enforcement,etc

Cheaper, yes, but the whole point of the licence is that the BBC's revenue stream is separate from the government of the day, so that they are seen to be independent. No special receiving equipment (beyond a set top box for older TVs) is required to watch the channel.

I don't buy that argument that if its paid for by normal taxation then governments might be able to tamper with it. The license should go (to stop the free loaders from not paying) and to save cash by not having to have all the CAPITA BS, etc Fund it out of taxation but have it set in law that the BBC will be guaranteed its funding every year at a level of a figure + CPI, etc This would then make it very difficult for any government to "adjust" funding to suit its own agenda

Seen to be indy

Theoretically independent

But they rarely do anything much to inconvenience the government of the day, a few token gestures of pretending independence with the occasional govt critical piece but pretty much govt don't rock the boat lapdog.

Take news coverage, there has been plenty of "major" news this week or so that has various ramifications, everything from latest Trump team / Russia issues, NORKS very public "No Big Brother" behavior, rocket up the generals etc. and closer to home quite an important election over the Irish sea & lots of unrest over hard Brexit.

..However, whenever I caught BBC news it seemed obsessed with Oscars run up then results / envelopes issues, the sort of stuff that once would have been the light, amusing "and finally" feel good ending to the news is now the lead story.

RE:Confused of Canada

So to try to answer your question: there is very specific wording that governs the TV licence. The BBC have a charter, which ensures it is at arms length from the government, is not wholey funded by the taxpayer, and also has rules governing how it is to operate such as being available to all. This also prevents it using general taxation or subscription methods to be funded (though this could change with a change in laws). The charter is renewed every 10 years, and has been deliberately set up to preserve the status quo.

The rules:

In order to watch TV programmes as they are being broadcast in the UK, you must have a TV licence. As of last year, to watch iPlayer (the video on demand service of the BBC) you must have a TV licence.

If you don't fall into those two categories, you don't have to have a licence. So for me, I have Netflix & Amazon subscriptions and only watch TV on demand and not iPlayer - i don't require a licence. I have TVs but they're all for console gaming or watching DVDs. I still don't require a licence.

Personally I would object to having to pay the BBCs bills because I don't use their content.

Would it work out cheaper if paid via general taxation? probably. But then I would have to pay and the selfish type of capitalist I am, I don't want to pay for something I don't use, nor, in my opinion, find of benefit to the public at large. (Though you'd find plenty of my countrymen willing to argue it is of public benefit)

If they went to a subscription model, you'd still have people like me not paying, the effect of general inertia of the populace and the lack of people succumbing to their threats so it would almost certainly raise costs for those who wanted it if the BBC wanted to maintain it's current level of funding. Not to mention that plenty of people don't watch the BBC but do watch other broadcasters and currently legally have to pay the BBC, and wouldn't have to under subscription.

So we're stuck in this ridiculous situation where it's an apparently optional cost, requiring significant knowledge of the loopholes to avoid (as I do), and using threats and legally powerless enforcement officers to shake down those who are suspected of evasion. It is very deliberately kept vague as to what rights their enforcers have (actually very few, though they give the impression they are the equivalent of the police with search warrants) and as such, hundreds of people are prosecuted every year when their only way of catching such people is to get them to self-incriminate themselves. Whilst I object to freeloaders, I object more to the enforcement methods which no other organisation would ever get away with, and thus, I (legally) do not pay for a TV Licence.

Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

You need a license in the UK to watch TV?

Okay, y'all are a sovereign nation and can do what you want. But, I think your government is just a bit overreaching to require a license to watch TV. I hope, for your sake, that Brexit was just the beginning and you continue to remove the layers of government which are controlling you.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

I don't want to enter the realm of "ethnic stereotyping" but can we conclude from the "y'all" that you are the US?

In the UK we have a broadcasting system that provides 3 television channels (BBC 1, 2, & 4) that are transmitted sans advertising. (BBC 3 is now on - line only.) Those channels (along with something like 7 radio channels from the same organisation) have to be paid for and it is the licence fee that constitutes that payment. (Your "license" is perhaps another clue as to your whereabouts!)

If your alternative to our arrangement is the Merkin Model then for my money we'll just stay as we are, thank you very much. And FWIW if I'm going to be "controlled" by someone then I'd rather it was by a layer of government than by Rupert Murdoch and his like. The government does not control the BBC, although it would almost certainly like to; listen to or watch much of the BBC's output and the absence of government control is all too apparent.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

"If your alternative to our arrangement is the Merkin Model then for my money we'll just stay as we are, thank you very much."

But a great many of us Brits don't want to stay where we are thank you very much. However we are forced to under the threat of violence (ultimately jail if you are stubborn). The only way to avoid is is not to watch TV even if you are not watching BBC.

Thankfully it's a ton easier now with Netflix etc to get by and I don't pay those b'stards a penny.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

I don't think you quite understand the situation here; the license fee covers three terrestrial + one online TV channel and seven (I think) radio stations, all of which are advertising free; a one hour programme on the BBC lasts, pretty much, for an hour with no effort to sell me crap I've no interest in.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

But if quality advertisement-free broadcasting had to be funded from general taxation, then the broadcaster might rightly or wrongly be seen as being somewhat beholden to the government of the day. As things stand, governments have traditionally been afraid of the BBC ("Bolshevik Broadcasting Collective" is what the Conservatives used to refer to it as, and Labour always considered the BBC a Tory mothpiece) although recent events have embarrassed the BBC and emboldened the government.

Re: Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot!!??

Well I suppose we could go the American way and instead of having the goverment enforcing things leave it to the corporations, tell me are you in a comcast, AT & T, or Verizon country? sorry I mean operating territory, oops no state thats the word isn't it?

BBC Licence Tracers Little More Than Thieves

My late Mother, after she was widowed, was always very reluctant to open the door to strangers,

One day there is a knock at the door, which she refused to acknowledge, and the knocking persisted for some time during which she persisted in not answering the door.

The intruder seemingly went to a neighbours, introduced himself, provided ID and commenced to acquire a physical description of my Mother - all second hand.

A few weeks later she was summonsed to court and in her stead she was represented by my brother.

The 'complaint' was wholly fabricated by the Licence Enforcer but made believable by him describing someone he had never met. My brother produced her birth certificate (which made her 87 at the time of the 'offence') along with an Affidavit from a TV repair person that stated the signal level in that part Buckinghamshire required an external antenna and that there was none. The witness further attested to the fact the only TV set was in a closet, that was filled with bric-a-brac and dust and not in working condition.

Re: BBC Licence Tracers Little More Than Thieves

Anything to ruin crapita

BBC is pretty good, best we have as a traditional broadcaster in the UK, general taxation would be better for me financially and also worse for Crapita (good) but it is independant of the government and is more or less neutral.

As above left wingers say right wing and right wingers say left, means they must be in the middle.

Big opportunity missed

I think a big opportunity was missed recently. With the switch-over from analogue to digital broadcasting, it should have been mandated from day one that every receiver (including set-top boxes) must incorporate a smartcard reader, so that the BBC channels could eventually have been broadcast scrambled.

That would mean that if you didn't pay, you couldn't watch, and no need for enforcement mobs. It would also alter the payment model from per-household to per-set; but cards could be swapped about as required in houses with more TVs than people. It wouldn't necessarily be less fair, just different.

And I speak in the capacity of someone who lived for awhile without a TV set, and was falsely assumed to be watching without paying, and someone whose family income while growing up derived ultimately from the TV licence payer.

Re: Big opportunity missed

At least I had the courtesy to quote some sources in my comment rather than 'I used to own...'

It's not twaddle. The point was that by building and deploying a system that did not use smart cards or encryption (and that was the main difference between Freeview and ITVDigital) there is an incredible amount of consumer inertia now built up making it almost impossible to switch to a BBC subscription model over DTV anytime soon. All those TVs with built in tuners that would suddenly become useless.....

Which was the whole idea. Greg Dyke admits it in his book. Go and read it if you don't believe me, but I did try to save you!

Re: James May Reassembler

BBC has plenty of adverts, for its own stuff and there's plenty of product placement and endorsement. Just look at the disproportionate amount of positive coverage Apple get both on the BBC news website, BBC Click, news, etc, funnily enough most of the presenters use Apple products, and I'm sure they paid full price for them, honest. Then there's things like the Book Review which is just licence payer funded advertising for the author.

Re: James May Reassembler

If you want to take that to the nth degree then talk shows are about nothing more than flogging stuff, and music radio is nothing more than an advert-fest for new releases, intertwined with interviews with anyone else with an "interesting" story to tell that invariably links to flogging something.

Re: who opens their door to strangers?

jesus, American paranoia, there's nothing like it...

Strangely enough, here in the UK I have no qualms about opening my metroland front door to complete strangers, just because they're strangers. The world's full of people I've not met yet, but I don't lie awake worrying that they're planning to murder me, because that would be insane. I don't actually know who's knocking until I open it, anyway, there's no spyhole. But that's because no-one don't knock on the door then burst in and beats up and/or robs the inhabitants. Does that happen in the US? Seriously?

Why women?

So what factors might be causing women to be over-represented among licence evaders?

1. The enforcement gangs, who are paid by results, find women easier targets.

2. Single men are more likely than single women to pay their TV licences.

3. Single men are more likely than women successfully to evade paying the TV licence.

4. In two-parent families with one parent staying at home to look after the children during the daytime when enforcement officers are most likely to call, it is more likely to be the father who is out at work and the mother who ends up taking responsibility.

5. Single men are more likely than single women to live without a TV.

6. This is just so much more Beeb-bashing from the rich, advertisement-funded private media.

Re: Why women?

fees and the like...

Well, here in the good 'ol USA somethings have fees. In my case I have a nice XM (satellite) radio, and I pay a nice fee on a quarterly basis. I gave them my receiver number (a 32 bit hex encoded thingy), and they let my receiver work. If they didn't receive the $$$ (I turned off the credit card, or some such), I suspect that my nice radio (I listen to a '60s radio channel) would go silent.

It is a wonder that the beeb didn't have this for TVs and license fees. It would have eliminated all sorts of problems, and enforcement stuff.

Yes, some most american TV is a wasteland. In one hour we only get 45 minutes of actual TV worth viewing, but it does pay the bills. My wife likes her TiVo so she can skip the nasty stuff at high speed. Then again, every once in a while (it is rare!) an advert is amusing, or (shudder) informative. Life goes on.

Seems a good deal to me

Those of us outside the UK are wondering why UK people complain about paying only $145/year for access to the whole of the BBC. I would gladly pay so little for such a huge number of advertising-free decent programs.

Try living in Au/NZ for a bit with only Sky at 50 quid/month that is 40% advertising by time.

Re: Seems a good deal to me

"Try living in Au/NZ for a bit with only Sky at 50 quid/month that is 40% advertising by time."

SKY Subscription is optional. Do you get legally threatening letters because you don't subscribe to SKY?

Theres a difference between threats and marketing material.

If you did, you would just vpn/proxy to sites where the video material is available thereby evading the need for license. But what if you dont use TV at all except for DVD, computing and games console? You're sill liable to intimidation tactics.

Re: Seems a good deal to me

>Try living in the UK .

No way in hell, has nothing to do with TV license, though.

Mind, I pay 138 euro per year for TV, we pay that as we pay local tax. They have people enforcing the payment of this ... I had no TV for a few years, all I had to do was declare I had no TV, and I did not need to pay. When I then got a new TV, for the kid's console, when you buy you must give name/address/etc ... pretty sure you can BS them, however, you are then alone if you need a warranty on the TV.

Anyway, 138 euro for TV programs full of French, and a shit load of ads ... thanks, but no ... we don't watch TV but since I have the apparatus to receive, I must pay.

Re: Seems a good deal to me

An out of date business model. If BBC want to be paid they need to keep with the times and switch to a subscription model, like most content providers nowadays.

I don't have a TV license. I have 2 TVs in my home but I don't need a license as they are only connected to Fire TV sticks and the main one is also connected to a PC as a secondary monitor. I don't watch any live TV other than Call the Midwife, which I watch at my partner's home which is covered by a license.

I've been getting various letters from TV licensing for the past 3 years now and they all instantly go in the bin. If someone comes to the door and I'm not expecting anyone they are ignored.

I've not been prosecuted for anything. I've done nothing wrong and have no reason to speak to these people.

A few years back I did watch BBC news and various other live programs and I had a license. I've even appeared on BBC TV (and radio) myself a few times as an expert on a certain subject but I now have nothing to do with them as they are no longer unbiased and most definitely have an agenda.

An out of date business model. If BBC want to be paid they need to keep with the times and switch to a subscription model, like most content providers nowadays.

That's demonstrably false. BBC income is holding up and they're still producing an enormous number of superb unique programmes with it. (Along with a lot of crap, yes, but, I'm a Radio 4 junkie, has a commercial model ever produced a channel of such quality, anywhere? ever?)